on Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 06:28:18PM +1000, Andrew Pollock ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> > on Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 02:37:23PM +1000, Andrew Pollock ([EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've got /tmp mounted rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev beca
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 02:37:23PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> I've got /tmp mounted rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev because I think I read
> somewhere that that was a good way to go security-wise.
>
> It seems that some package related configuration stuff writes
> temporary scripts into /tmp, which the
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 02:37:23PM +1000, Andrew Pollock ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've got /tmp mounted rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev because I think I read
> > somewhere
> > that that was a good way to go security-wise.
>
> It is, but
on Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 02:37:23PM +1000, Andrew Pollock ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got /tmp mounted rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev because I think I read somewhere
> that that was a good way to go security-wise.
It is, but...
> It seems that some package related configuration stuff writ
Hi,
I've got /tmp mounted rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev because I think I read somewhere
that that was a good way to go security-wise.
It seems that some package related configuration stuff writes temporary
scripts
into /tmp, which then don't run because /tmp's mounted noexec
Should perhaps such script
5 matches
Mail list logo